Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not even that. It's a lack of parents showing their children new things. Girls are expected to do X and boys are expected to do Y.
I have a myriad of preteen females in my family. Guess what color they all say they like? Pink. I quizzed (aka military questioned ) some and asked them exactly why do you like pink. They told me because someone on a cartoon or TV wears pink. Oh and their toys are pink. Asked their dads why they buy all the pink crap in the store? Because it's what I'm programmed to do. /facepalm
The teenage girls in my family are few, but they still carry the "pink" gene. They are literally embarrassed to say anything other than pink because everything else is the "wrong" answer. Found out one likes electronics. Would have NEVER known that going by the regiment of cooking and cleaning that her family puts her through. She has a 2% chance of doing something that she actually likes when she goes to college. I'm expecting that she's going to be a straight A student that becomes a housewife based on the way she is shoved into a box at home. I guess she will have some really smart boys since she is the top of her class if intelligence is hereditary.
It's not even that. It's a lack of parents showing their children new things. Girls are expected to do X and boys are expected to do Y.
I have a myriad of preteen females in my family. Guess what color they all say they like? Pink. I quizzed (aka military questioned ) some and asked them exactly why do you like pink. They told me because someone on a cartoon or TV wears pink. Oh and their toys are pink. Asked their dads why they buy all the pink crap in the store? Because it's what I'm programmed to do. /facepalm
The teenage girls in my family are few, but they still carry the "pink" gene. They are literally embarrassed to say anything other than pink because everything else is the "wrong" answer. Found out one likes electronics. Would have NEVER known that going by the regiment of cooking and cleaning that her family puts her through. She has a 2% chance of doing something that she actually likes when she goes to college. I'm expecting that she's going to be a straight A student that becomes a housewife based on the way she is shoved into a box at home. I guess she will have some really smart boys since she is the top of her class if intelligence is hereditary.
In the case of not hiring women, companies may be reluctant to hire a worker who could become pregnant and have to go on maternity leave on their dime. Therefore they have no incentive to hire women either. Thus, they pay less for the same skillset or discourage hiring females entirely. The only solution I can think of to that is to make it a blanket policy where men and women can take the same leave for the same amount of time.
Except this isn't a fact. Women and minority participation in STEM fields vary wildly country by country. If it were really true that genetically all men did this and all women did that then for the most part we should see the same thing country to country. But we don't... not even close. In particular women in STEM in the US it's like 24% while world wide it's much higher. Communist country or no it's higher elsewhere than here. To boil the topic down to "women aren't interested in STEM," or the mere discussion of the topic is man-hating shows a lack of inquisitiveness and binary thinking, which is troublesome.
I'm not giving you an argument. I'm giving you facts. There's a difference. If you want to ignore them that's on you. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior in STEM yet they have a higher participation rate through forced diversity in countries that have some of the poorest equality programs of any country. Do you actually believe there are more robust diversity programs in India or Mongolia than the US?Sorry but your argument is not persuasive. Is participation in other countries higher because feminists have legislated so called equality? You are making a broad statement without any supporting data. There are notable examples of prominent women in technology and science but they are the exceptions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields
United States
According to the Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey, women comprise 48 percent of the U.S. workforce but just 24 percent of workers in STEM fields. Half as many women work in STEM jobs as would be expected if gender representation in STEM professions mirrored the overall workforce. "
Mongolia
According to UNESCO's data from 2012 and 2011 respectively, 40.2% of students enrolled in science programs and 49% of researchers in science, technology, and innovation in Mongolia are female. Traditionally, nomadic Mongol culture was fairly egalitarian, with both women and men raising children, tending livestock, and fighting in battle, which mirrors the relative equality of women and men in Mongolia’s modern-day workforce.
Sorry but your opinion is not a fact. It is illogical to conclude that because women are less interested in STEM professions that they are genetically inferior. Men and women are different. Difference does not imply superiority or inferiority. Higher participation through forced diversity is irrelevant when the American model produces superior results.I'm not giving you an argument. I'm giving you facts. There's a difference. If you want to ignore them that's on you. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior in STEM yet they have a higher participation rate through forced diversity in countries that have some of the poorest equality programs of any country. Do you actually believe there are more robust diversity programs in India or Mongolia than the US?
In countries where more choice in education and jobs are allowed, the disparity in STEM is higher.Except this isn't a fact. Women and minority participation in STEM fields vary wildly country by country. If it were really true that genetically all men did this and all women did that then for the most part we should see the same thing country to country. But we don't... not even close. In particular women in STEM in the US it's like 24% while world wide it's much higher. Communist country or no it's higher elsewhere than here. To boil the topic down to "women aren't interested in STEM," or the mere discussion of the topic is man-hating shows a lack of inquisitiveness and binary thinking, which is troublesome.
The second rate technology companies like Intel and Adobe really don't seem to interview junior candidates outside of their certain chosen schools. Based on my experiences, if you want a job at a reputable technology company, you really ought to go to a solid, top 50 CS/CE/EE program.How to fix it?
For each recruiting event you hold at MIT and Cal, hold one at Howard and Morgan State.
For each recruiting event you hold at Barnard and Spelman, hold one at Hampden-Sydney and Morehouse.
If you're only recruiting from a very small college pool that YOU "think" is only the best, you're losing out on a lot of quality talent.
That's how diversity, equal opportunity, and Affirmative Action/Title IX are supposed to work, btw - it's not really that complicated.
I'm not giving you an argument. I'm giving you facts. There's a difference. If you want to ignore them that's on you. Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior in STEM yet they have a higher participation rate through forced diversity in countries that have some of the poorest equality programs of any country. Do you actually believe there are more robust diversity programs in India or Mongolia than the US?
It's not even that. It's a lack of parents showing their children new things. Girls are expected to do X and boys are expected to do Y.
I have a myriad of preteen females in my family. Guess what color they all say they like? Pink. I quizzed (aka military questioned ) some and asked them exactly why do you like pink. They told me because someone on a cartoon or TV wears pink. Oh and their toys are pink. Asked their dads why they buy all the pink crap in the store? Because it's what I'm programmed to do. /facepalm
The teenage girls in my family are few, but they still carry the "pink" gene. They are literally embarrassed to say anything other than pink because everything else is the "wrong" answer. Found out one likes electronics. Would have NEVER known that going by the regiment of cooking and cleaning that her family puts her through. She has a 2% chance of doing something that she actually likes when she goes to college. I'm expecting that she's going to be a straight A student that becomes a housewife based on the way she is shoved into a box at home. I guess she will have some really smart boys since she is the top of her class if intelligence is hereditary.
Sorry but your opinion is not a fact. It is illogical to conclude that because women are less interested in STEM professions that they are genetically inferior. Men and women are different. Difference does not imply superiority or inferiority. Higher participation through forced diversity is irrelevant when the American model produces superior results. What "you" are arguing for is discriminatory policies against males and I presume white and asian males in particular. That makes your agenda racist and sexist. You can prattle on about the feminist agenda but that doesn't make you enlightened.
What "you" are arguing for is discriminatory policies against males and I presume white and asian males in particular. That makes your agenda racist and sexist. You can prattle on about the feminist agenda but that doesn't make you enlightened.
No... You said: "On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior" which I never did. I don't think you should make accusations about reading comprehension when you can't even keep track of what you said...
You must really have a problem with reading comprehension. Where did I say that "women are less interested in STEM professions that they are genetically inferior?" I also haven't brought up race at ALL. So basically this is a Pavlovian response. That would explain why the word "opinion" was used when someone provided you with an actual study on the issue. Am I "enlightened"? No. Then again I never claimed to be and my reading comprehension skills are pretty good. The same doesn't appear to be applicable to you.
What is this? Is this the new "I have tons of << insert minority here>> friends so I couldn't possibly be a racist," meme. I have to give it to you though. For you to try and actually preach on about how someone else is racist (even though the first person to bring up race was you) and then go on and to try to put each race in order to your perceived notion of excellence is quite amazing. It's BS of course, and meets the actual definition of a racist, but it is still amazing to see you try and pull it off.
Which isn't the same thing as me saying they are. You and I are not the same nouns. Talk about inferiority....sheesh. Maybe since you believe you are genetically superior you just need a simple English 101 class to catch you up with the other people who speak English as their second language.No... You said: "On one hand you are making the argument that women are genetically inferior" which I never did.
In as far as you are arguing for a feminist interpretation of the data it is logical to conclude you are a feminist. Feminists believe that women are under-represented in STEM because of discrimination rather than a lack of interest and seek to impose equality through affirmative action which many (including myself) believe represents discrimination against men (and in particular white and asian men) ergo as a feminist you are promoting a sexist (and racist) agenda to promote women, simply because they are women, over better qualified (white and asian) men.
Feminists are racist and sexist. You are a feminist therefore you are racist and sexist.
angry lesbians in Burkenstocks
You realize you are the one implying your own superiority at every turn. Despite your attacks on my reading comprehension it appears you are the one lacking. Note in post #6 I cited a study that demonstrates IT companies are more likely to hire a qualified woman than a man. How ever did you miss that?Which isn't the same thing as me saying they are. You and I are not the same nouns. Talk about inferiority....sheesh. Maybe since you believe you are genetically superior you just need a simple English 101 class to catch you up with the other people who speak English as their second language.
So me providing information not written by myself and published in a encyclopedia proves I'm sexist (which I didn't make arguments against women so go figure on your rational there) and racist (even though I wasn't the first bring up race, nor the one singling out superiority of some over others )? It looks like to me the only person having problem with either is you. Like I posted before projection projection everywhere. You can't even post a single study to back up your claims. Instead we have more "Deep Thoughts" pulled from the nether regions of "thejokker," which more than explains the maturity level I'm dealing with.
For your reference.
While your "I'm rubber your glue" way of thinking of the world is interesting ..... for a five year old, it doesn't really mean you have an "enlightened" point of view. If anything it proves that your delusions have escaped the asylum and your brain is merely their prisoner. I'll just wait for you to post any study that can prove what you believe... not that I'll be holding my breath. In fact if you can't prove anything you are about to respond with I'll just forget it all together. I'm not one to have discussions with the simple.
A) That wasn't to me andYou realize you are the one implying your own superiority at every turn. Despite your attacks on my reading comprehension it appears you are the one lacking. Note in post #6 I cited a study that demonstrates IT companies are more likely to hire a qualified woman than a man. How ever did you miss that?
Likewise your meager cognitive abilities fails to grasp that you are defending the feminist position. You are defending a sexist, racist viewpoint ergo one would naturally presume you are also a sexist and a racist. Are you a woman or a woman trapped in a man's body?
A) That wasn't to me and
B) Breitbart ?
Really? You might as well have given me a study from the KKK. I'm expecting Stanford and you give me fakenews.com as your example. LOL OK Dude.
...and that is your problem... Your mind is closed; not unlike an ostrich with it's head in the sand. It is a article about a study where tech workers were interviewed. There was a control group of men and women and an experimental groups where the voices were altered so that men sounded like women and women sounded like men. The experimenters hypothesized that men would be preferred, exposing a gender bias, however the men who sounded like women were the highest rated and the women who sounded like men were rated as low as the women (to the surprise of the experimental team).A) That wasn't to me and
B) Breitbart / Interviewing.io from Milo?
Really? You might as well have given me a study from the KKK. I'm expecting Stanford and you give me fakenews.com as your example. LOL OK Dude.
Not at all. I'm not going to even consider a Neo-Nazi site as a news platform. There's no problem over here. If you are going to use sources then generally they should be apolitical. It would be no better than me showing you a study conducted by Al Gore. Would you accept that? Not likely, which is why I would never use a source that's so political. Furthermore since that site is apart of the "Alt-Right" collection of news sources pretty much every argument that you've made thus far can be completely tossed out the window. You might convince someone else of your neutrality when dealing with issues about minorities (whatever the category) but you're not convincing me whatsoever. It's not that I can't be convinced it's that I will not be convinced by a source that goes out of it's way to persecute minorities and then call it news. To me it's no better than the propaganda handed out in Nazi-Germany. Aside from gluing yourself to Asians (still don't know what that's about) they've said all of the same things you've said in this thread....and that is your problem... Your mind is closed; not unlike an ostrich with it's head in the sand.
Considering every single statistic we have with regards to pay, equal opportunity, etc., this question is like asking why peanut butter tastes like jelly when the obvious answer is that it doesn't. I'm a guy, so you think I'm going to support someone discriminating against me? Do you think switching the nouns and subjects within a sentence is all you need to do? I won't even get into the fact that quotas don't exist in the private sector. While it's entertaining of you to victimize yourself when there's nothing to substantiate it, all of this really comes down to one simple thing. You are butthurt that if someone else has an equal shot then that might mean that your position in the majority is being threatened. So rather than being better by bettering yourself you would rather be ironically a victim when there is no justification for it whatsoever.Why do you support radical feminists who seek to discriminate against men?
Not at all. I'm not going to even consider a Neo-Nazi site as a news platform.
Shouldn't the thread title start, "Why doesn't..." ...?